back to article Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute, approves DRM as Web standard

Sir Tim Berners-Lee has controversially decided to back the introduction of digital rights management – aka anti-piracy and anti-copying mechanisms – as a Web standard. Writing in a blog post last week, the director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) argued that to stand in the way of the new Encrypted Media Extensions ( …

Silver badge

"Because phones aren't general purpose computing devices despite all claims to the contrary? Secondly they're not as secure as you might think - keys *can* be retrieved from them if they were worth the effort."

But risky. Many of those keys are housed in suicide circuits (think FIPS-compliant modules) which wipe if you try to read them directly. And the effort clearly isn't worth the reward at this point since even new smartphones with the feature built-in (not to mention things like ARM's TrustZones) would make very attractive targets yet they haven't been broken. This may have to do with the most fundamental signature checks being against ROM, making them impossible to defeat without performing a preimage attack (and if you can pull off a preimage attack, there are government agencies that would like to talk to you).

0
2
FAIL

They're doing that themselves. Seriously, £13 to see a film at the cinema? Plus the £1 extra for the extra 6 inches of legroom, and the £1 extra for the "Blockbuster surcharge" if it's the opening weekend... plus the £millions it costs for popcorn, sweets, drinks etc... it's a £20 trip each time. For a film I can watch on Sky for free (as part of my subscription) in 6 months, or buy for £8.99 in Sainsbury's 2 months after that.

0
0
Silver badge

"They're doing that themselves. Seriously, £13 to see a film at the cinema? Plus the £1 extra for the extra 6 inches of legroom, and the £1 extra for the "Blockbuster surcharge" if it's the opening weekend... plus the £millions it costs for popcorn, sweets, drinks etc... it's a £20 trip each time."

And yet people are willing (yeah, even eager) to pay up. The latest Wolverine film Logan is ranked #4 among R-rated movies on opening weekend (the #1 in the US as of now happens to be another Marvel film: Deadpool). Sounds to me like we have less say than we think. People are voting with their wallets, and we're losing.

0
1
Silver badge

Here is my problem with DRM

The simple fact is that DRM is 0% effective against piracy. It is a system, and it can always be hacked and it always will be hacked. Big Media tells us DRM is to stop piracy; it is a lie. DRM is not to stop piracy but to control how the majority of people use their content.

If there was no DRM, everyone could buy a movie and then turn around and re-encode a version for their tablet. And people could easily remove all the unskippable garbage they have to go through before the movie even plays. And people could make *gasp* backup copies instead of buying a new one if yours goes bad. You are looking at lost revenue right there. With DRM, you have to buy a disc and if you want a copy on your tablet and on your phone and on your child's tablet you have to buy a copy from Apple or Amazon or Google.

Make no mistake, DRM has absolutely nothing to do with stopping piracy but everything to do with controlling those who don't know or are too afraid to break the DRM, which is the vast majority of people. If Big Media was Pinocchio, their nose would be instantly be 100,000 miles long after telling us DRM is to prevent piracy.

43
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Here is my problem with DRM

Very good points! And I might add that along with the other chap mentioning DRM as a tracking agent, it is also the "foot in the door" for the RIAA/MPAA's newest stream of revenue; suing, or just making money threatening to sue, anyone trying to share a "protected media." This usually means sending out lots of letters to trick fearful people who cannot afford to defend themselves into "settling out of court" for cash prizes for the two bands of thugs. Mind you, the big time content copiers get away no problem, it's the small-time folks who make up the bulk of this revenue generator.

There are SO MANY new TV shows and movies released each year, and unless I'm getting old, the media quality is going down. I collect DVDs for shows and movies I would repeatedly watch, and I'm running out of things to get and not space to put it. Same thing for 4K TVs; most of my content was produced on and rendered in Standard Definition so I have zero use for a 4K HD set. Nor a connected one, unless it is a Kodi player inside I'm not hooking it up to the net. Nor 3D. I purchased a Blu-Ray player, two of them, and they are garbage. Both have shit for apps, and are slow to boot [sic] so I am very happy to continue to collect DVDs. Not everything new is good.

9
1
Silver badge

Re: Here is my problem with DRM

> There are SO MANY new TV shows and movies released each year, and unless I'm getting old, the media quality is going down.

They're not mutually exclusive ;)

> Nor a connected one, unless it is a Kodi player inside I'm not hooking it up to the net.

As someone with a "smart" tv (AndroidTV at that) - not even then. Get a seperate box to HDMI into the TV and hook that into the net instead.

Smart TV's are a shit-show. I connected mine up during the first week of having it so I could run captures and see how noisy it was, one quick review of the PCAP was enough for me to say "never again"

> I purchased a Blu-Ray player, two of them, and they are garbage

I only got as far as buying one. Then some of the content providers (cough... Fox...) changed the encryption they were using on disks and I started finding that some new Blu-Rays wouldn't play. The manufacturer had decided to discontinue the line, so didn't have a firmware update to support the new schema.

It's now an overly expensive CD player, and we're a non Blu-ray household again.

3
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Here is my problem with DRM

I have been forced to pirate on a few occasions, often due to attempts to stop people easily watching.

A few were of course DRM related, but others were locking down of content to force adverts, and some were format issues.

I put a DVD in my DVD player and I could not get to the film, everything was locked down, even the home menu button, so ripped it, burnt a DVD-R, watched the copy.

After a few of these I learnt my lesson and stopped buying DVDs

Then there was the aborted attempt by one producer to kill BluRay, so of course I obtained a rip of the HDDVD version and copied it to the hard disk of my Blu Ray player. I was so pleased that HDDVD was broken so easily as it helped to kill off that format war.

But then I find that when doing it legally is much easier I will. If I want a BluRay I will buy it and it WILL PLAY or I will obtain it. DVD I only get if someone gives them to me, as so many of the producers are obsessed with forcing you to watch the "would you use a Policemans hat as a toilet thingy", followed by 500 locked adverts of films I am not interested in, so if I have to rip and burn I may as well obtain it rather than rip it.

TV is fair game, but Amazon make it so easy I prefer to hand over for Prime membership. I am the only person at work who has actually paid to watch The Grand Tour. And I would also consider Netflix in the future.

So as you can see if you make it difficult we will work around the issue, make it easy and we will play along.

I cannot see any reason to get 4k Blurays due to the lockdowns, if I can stream in similar quality without lots of do this or do that.

2
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Here is my problem with DRM

Blu Ray

I will admit I took the console route as it was firstly cheaper, secondly quicker, thirdly more likely to be supported.

Mine still works OK and it is from 2009, replacing a 2007 YLOD.

I haven't used my latest console for BluRay but streaming from Amazon and BBC I player is great, trivially easy.

As to Smart TV, mine is more like Village Idiot.

1
0

DRM is terrible. Whenever the scheme changes, previous purchases (or ideally for the MPAA/RIAA/cabal, licenses) of media are lost. XKCD covered this well:

obligatory XKCD

18
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Seriously bad news

Having witnessed the Internet's birth, it looks like I'll be attending it's wake in the not too distant future.

13
2
FAIL

DRM means you don't own your content

I have a Nook e-book reader. I bought a few books from the Nook store. However, when Nook decided to close down its online book store, it meant that the books that I paid for were no longer available and were going to be wiped from my system if I connected it to the Internet. I had to download a special software to remove the DRM from my paid books.

This is what I HATE about DRM.

32
0
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

You NEVER own that content. It's ALWAYS been LICENSED to you. That's what copyright is all about.

2
28
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

Funny how my books and artwork just keeps "working" even when the seller has gone.

Why should digital be any different?

31
0

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

Nonsense. Of course, you never own the artistic work, but you do own the physical copy of it. Think of a book: you retain complete freedom to do whatever you want with it: you can read it, paper the walls with it, set fire to it, lend it to a friend, draw naughty pictures on it, whatever you like.

20
0

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

You NEVER own that content. It's ALWAYS been LICENSED to you. That's what copyright is all about.

No, that's not true. That is what the copyright holders claim, but it is not true.

If you buy a book, you own the book. It is yours to keep, to sell to other people, to tear into little pieces, to burn, to scribble over, and to read. And to do anything else you want to to it or with it unless that act is specifically illegal. You can't murder someone with it, for example. All "copyright is about" is that it temporarily adds one thing you can't do with the book: at certain times and certain situations you can't copy the book without a licence (in certain other cases it is still allowed).

The same is true for a CD or a DVD. They are no different. Just because the creator tries to claim that you have just bought a licence does not make it true.

21
0
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

"And to do anything else you want to to it or with it unless that act is specifically illegal."

That includes PHOTOCOPYING it.

4
7
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

"The same is true for a CD or a DVD."

and SHOULD be the same for an electronic-only copy. Just because it's bits on a hard drive doesn't make it any different, really.

8
0
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

Bullshit Copy-Right != Licence agreement

Copyright is a law that says you may not copy for redistribution a given work for $x number of years

Licence agreements while enforceable by legal means are a civil contract

Or at lease that is the way it used to work :(

6
0

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

"That includes PHOTOCOPYING it."

Depends. For as long as the copyright is valid, you cannot photocopy the whole book and sell / distribute the copies. You are free to photocopy the whole book for your own use or limited non-commercial distribution (ie give to your spouse or lend to a friend).

You are also free to photocopy or otherwise use excerpts of the book as illustrations, as part of a parody or critique. In these cases, it's also OK if you are commercially distributing your parody / critique that includes the excerpts. That's specifically allowed by copyright law

4
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

One reason I still buy paper ones.

1
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

Book photocopy.

Been there and done that.

About 100 pages copied in a reference book, then ten years later Ebay appears and I can finally buy my own copy!

0
0
Silver badge
Devil

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

I buy ebooks from Amazon and use my REAL Kindle's serial number on a plug in for Calibre so I will always have it and can read on non-Amazon eReader or apps with no DRM.

At least Amazon does let publishers (or indie authors) be DRM free. Smashwords is also DRM free.

DRM is evil period.

I never give other people copies of anything still under copyright. Eventually the content of my physical and digital archives ought to be public domain.

1
0

Yes but, without DRM would people pay the inflated prices the media industry charge?

Exactly, think of all the poor media execs etc that would suffer.

4
0
MJI
Silver badge

Answer is of course

Charge a bit less and get many more customers. Make it an easy option get more.

The cheaper and easier it is the more likely you will get a paying customer.

2
0

Of course they would, they already do pay plenty... I am sure if Netflix allowed downloads without DRM, they would have just as many subscribers...

I would probably download everything they had I liked, but I'd continue to pay because of new content!

Now I am sure there would still be piracy, but if you tagged the downloads somehow, you can sue the up-loader easier....

But really if you can get DRM-free content for a small fee/month, why would you bother with torrenting, where your probably paying for a VPN for that anyway?

1
0

All the whining in the world...

isn't going to take away the reality that, regardless of bad faith, somehow content creators and distributors need to earn a living. In the past the sheer cost, complexity, and inconvenience of owning your own printing press acted as an effective 'DRM'. Digital technology has made everyone a mass distributor (if they want to be).

DRM may be everything it's critics accuse it of, but the critics still have to come up with real world alternatives that somehow look after the legitimate interests of those who pay the price of producing content that others want to use.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the World's Wild Web people will get on with creating innovative ways of using the technology that completely bypasses the dinosaurs of the the old way of doing things, but some how, sooner or later folk have to earn a living without too much risk of being cleaned out by scumbags and lazy selfish 'consumers'.

8
12

Re: All the whining in the world...

DRM does not stop piracy.

What would help piracy is to make buying it legitimately actually be more convenient than pirating.

If you could buy it easily, in a format that would be yours forever (so no server shutdowns to worry about), that you could play on whatever device you wanted when you wanted, could re-encode into a format needed for your device easily, then that would be what one would do. As long as a legitimately bought version is less functional than the pirated version, people will be willing to go through the hassle of finding a pirated version.

20
0
Silver badge

Re: All the whining in the world...

But that's searching for unicorns because NOTHING beats FREE.

1
19

Re: All the whining in the world...

Narrow-mindled, blinkered thinking will never get you anywhere. Why do we have to give studios money? Ans: we don't. Content creators and distributors can starve. Or get real jobs. Screw 'em.

And what would ge the result? Well, nothing really. There will still be new content created and distributed. If you knew anything about history you'd know that there weren't even copyright laws back when the greatest creative geniuses the world has seen were creating wonderful art. Mozart, Shakespeare, Haydn, and Beethoven, for example: they all created great works anyway. No DRM, not even copyright.

DRM. Just say no.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"

Rubbish, Charles. CONVENIENCE beats free. Fandom and the desire to support your favourite content creators ALSO beats free. All an artist has to do is build a relationship with their fans, and provide their works in an easy to use, easy to transfer manner. Of course, that won't keep the coke train running for the increasingly-irrelevant middlemen. Tough shit for them.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"

Tell that to World of Goo. He released a game cheap as chips and people STILL pirated it, EXTENSIVELY. And he had proof of it, too.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"

Some people will, always. Those people are not your customers and there is nothing to be gained in throwing good money after bad in an effort to lock out this tiny percentage, especially using methods that cost you money and alienate a large proportion of your paying customers. That's called cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Incidentally, I bought World of Goo, was a fun game.

If you want examples why not look at one of the biggest and best known ones? CD Projekt, makers of The Witcher games and the brains behind GoG.com. They are raking it in hand-over-fist because (a) they release good stuff, (b) they won't use DRM and they make sure people know that, and (c) they don't get all bent out of shape over the small handful that won't pay for their games. They even released patches to remove Steam's DRM from their games, just out of principle. THIS is how you build a loyal fan base in the modern age.

Admittedly, it is a bit more difficult for first-time releases such as the World of Goo guy. If you are completely unknown, you won't have much of a fan base to start with. That needs to be built up over multiple releases.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: That needs to be built up over multiple releases.

Yeah, fine if mummy and daddy are happy paying for the company to run for a few years. How do you build that fan base up if no-one's paying for what you produce?

0
2
Silver badge

Re: All the whining in the world...

"And what would ge the result? Well, nothing really. There will still be new content created and distributed. If you knew anything about history you'd know that there weren't even copyright laws back when the greatest creative geniuses the world has seen were creating wonderful art. Mozart, Shakespeare, Haydn, and Beethoven, for example: they all created great works anyway. No DRM, not even copyright."

Yes, but then the common people didn't have access to them. They were all commissioned...by the RICH. Want to go back to those days when art was only done by commission by the rich who could afford the artists' price demands?

1
1
Silver badge

Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"

"Rubbish, Charles. CONVENIENCE beats free. Fandom and the desire to support your favourite content creators ALSO beats free. All an artist has to do is build a relationship with their fans, and provide their works in an easy to use, easy to transfer manner. Of course, that won't keep the coke train running for the increasingly-irrelevant middlemen. Tough shit for them."

Not necessarily. Haters gonna hate, and life on tour isn't what it used to be. Billy Joel's first #1 hit, "Piano Man," was based on the night he was just scraping doing playing in a bar. Many can't even get beyond that point and just fade into obscurity and you never hear about them. If you say tough shit for the middlemen (who you usually NEED to really get past the tour life due to their connections), you're basically saying tough shit for live music because that's life. Sometimes, the only way to make it is to make a deal with the devil; sad but true.

0
3
Silver badge

Re: All the whining in the world...

> But that's searching for unicorns because NOTHING beats FREE.

And yet, people quite happily pay subscriptions to unlicensed services (i.e. all the content is technically pirated) because they offer the convenience of having everything in one place, or have a good app, or don't restrict viewing it to "you must be running silverlight on this specific revision of Win 10".

Free is hard to beat, but there are services out there who are actively managing to do so, even with the fact that they're occasionally receiving DMCA takedown's for some of the content they're "providing".

0
0
Silver badge

Re: That needs to be built up over multiple releases.

If you're just starting out, why don't you have a day job? Success takes time. Building up a fanbase takes time. As you build a good relationship with your fans you can expect to see piracy dramatically drop off as fans CHOOSE to support you in your artistic endeavours.

3
0

Re: All the whining in the world...

"What would help piracy is to make buying it legitimately actually be more convenient than pirating."

I would like that to be the case, and I believe for some people that is true. But there are still many people worldwide who would pirate rather than buy, whatever the price / convenience, because gratis is always gratis.

If I'm a small producer whose film has a potential market of 20-30,000, then even 10-15% of them pirating it is a big loss. 30-50% start doing that, I'm working at a loss. I'm not saying DRM is the solution to piracy (it isn't), but let's not kid ourselves that piracy is something that happens BECAUSE of DRM. Some piracy is people not wanting restrictions on the stuff they buy, but most piracy is because people don't want to pay for the content they want to see.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: All the whining in the world...

No. Genuinely creative work doesn't need protection in order for creators to make money. My creative work is done for nothing. Always has been. No artist works to order; when they do, unless they're a Renaissance genius, the result is always sad. Money made by artists is just a way of financing future art, and often it's in a completely unrelated field.

Correction. Genuinely creative work doesn't need protection, except from intellectual property law. My creative work typically costs me money. Why? Because I hold patents. Often have, often will. Why? Essentially for defensive purposes, so some other bastard doesn't control me in the future by patenting what I've done; and so I can persuade others to work with me; and and so I can do further work and make further art without the risk of someone "owning" me in the future. Intellectual property rights are a crock (and for centuries economically disastrous, as instanced by writers from Adam Smith on the free market to Richard Posner on modern US IPR and Barry Supple on the Stuart monarchy). They're also vulnerable to politics, illustrating the same point.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: That needs to be built up over multiple releases.

Good point, but from experience the answer is easy. Keep your day-job.

0
0
Silver badge

This issue, I think, concerns copyright and its effectively unlimited duration and scope as it does the technical issue of protecting the rights of copyright holders. The holders have the legal right to control distribution of the copyrighted material, as well as the right to use technical means to protect against its unlawful copying and distribution, for definitions of unlawful that vary from country to country.

Along the way, the copyright holders as a group have engaged in rent seeking activities that resulted in protection that extends far beyond the life of any author who might have been thought the intended beneficiary of the copyright law, and additional protection for the technical means of media protection as exemplified by the DMCA. They also have been tempted, too often successfully, to include in the technical means features that prevent lawful use of copyrighted material and to engage in extortionate lawsuits that demand wholly unreasonable punishment for relatively inconsequential infringements. They often have been a sorry lot indeed, and quite deserve to be brought to heel.

Failing to include digital restrictions management capability in web standards will not prevent the media corps from implementing their own any more than including it in the standards will prevent it. However, having a standard, even an inadequate one, often is preferable to having none, and in the case of EME may result in broader availability of copyrighted material than is the case now; and that probably is a good thing. A better thing might be its availability without such encumbrances, but that is unlikely. A better thing, almost for sure, would be to revise copyright law to reduce the term to something reasonable like the far older 14 years with an optional 14 year extension, and maybe reduce penaltie for infringement to an amount commensurate with the actual royalty payable for legal copies in the quantity infringed.

6
1

I hate to disagree with such a well-reasoned post, but paying the danegeld never does any damned good.

Giving in to the copyright industry on EME will not result in a greater availability of any material, because the copyright industry is in the business of limiting access to content, and it has chosen those limits to be exactly what they are now. They could have opened the floodgates as soon as Internet bandwidth was adequate, but they didn't, and they won't. They could have monetized a huge backlog of old material that's just sitting idle, but they won't do that either, because it would compete with new, overpriced material.

Giving in to Big Content never helps. Microsoft baked DRM into Windows (Vista), but it bought them absolutely no concessions from Hollywood. Because the publishing business today is all about control, and gives up none of it, ever.

As far as restoring reasonable copyright terms, you are absolutely right. But most forms of DRM aren't about enforcing copyright - they're about grabbing extra rights not actually provided under copyright. For example, preventing users from putting movies on a NAS drive, which would be perfectly legal in many jurisdictions. Or preventing paying subscribers from viewing Netflix content while traveling to another country. Or preventing a US consumer from playing a Blu-ray purchased while on holiday in the UK.DRM is very effective in these cases, but totally ineffective at its ostensible role of preventing copying of discs for public distribution.

Bottom line, there's nothing whatever to be gained by accepting EME in HTML, but a great deal to be lost.

5
0

Better than plugins

EME is better than the alternatives.

The alternatives are:

1) Plugins such as Flash, Silverlight, etc. Currently in common use for DRM video playback. To be useful, a plugin has to include not just the DRM bit, but also the media download, video & audio decoders, and a UI framework, and a scripting language to write the video player in (for fast forward, rewind, volume, etc). Because they end up including a whole scripting language and UI framework, which have to be massive to be useful, they have a massive attack surface and are full of bugs. They also have limited availability - e.g. Flash on Linux wasn't available for a long time.

2) EME. This is basically "plugins lite" - an EME CDM is basically an extremely cut-down plugin that just does the DRM. The browser handles the UI and JavaScript, and also does the media download and sometimes the video & audio decodes. Becasue an EME CDM is so much simpler than a plugin, it has a much smaller attack surface and is likely to be harder to hack. Also, because EME CDMs are new, browser makers are demanding they are sandboxed in a way that can't easily be done with plugins. (Yes, I know Chrome runs Flash in a sandbox, but that wasn't easy for them to do, and AFAIK no-one's done that with Silverlight or any non-Adobe plugin).

3) Something browser-specific. That gets you direct to "this site only works with Microsoft Edge". No-one wants this.

4) Streaming video sites stop serving PCs. If you want to watch Amazon Prime, go buy an Amazon Fire TV or an Amazon tablet. No-one wants this.

5) The magic fairies ride in on their flying Unicorns and persuade Hollywood to make their content available without DRM. This is the one that anti-DRM people want, but the problem is that ... unicorns aren't real, and no-one has yet found a way to persuade Hollywood to do that. Some anti-DRM people seem to believe that they can say "the web doesn't support DRM for videos" and that will force Hollywood to go "ah well, in that case we'll make our videos available DRM-free". In fact, of course, Hollywood will say "That's not true, we've been doing DRM video on the web for years - see option 1. But if you want to break that in your browsers then we'll stop supporting them, and advise people to use different browsers or Fire TV or iPads or whatever, and most people will, because in the real world most people care more about actually seeing videos than care about your ideological anti-DRM stuff." Therefore this approach would be suicidal for any browser vendor - even Mozilla realised that and added support for EME.

(Note that I'm not taking a position on whether DRM is "good" or "bad"; I'm taking the position that in the real world DRM is here to stay and there's nothing we can do about that, so lets make the best we can).

7
3

Re: Better than plugins

Unfortunately, DRM is demonstrably "bad," which kind of invalidates everything you've said.

Also, to your point 5... It's not about getting access to content. EME won't change that at all. There's shitloads of content now, and there won't be any more or less if we leave EME out of the HTML standard. (What exactly are you expecting EME to enable that you can't see already?? Fairies and unicorns, maybe...)

But by rejecting EME we will have made DRM look just a bit less acceptable. And we'll have kept at least one channel, the Web, fundamentally free of it. Of course, things like Flash will work as before, but they'll remain what they are now - obviously proprietary workarounds - rather than being endorsed as part of the Web's basic architecture. That's an important distinction, and it costs us absolutely nothing, other than having to show a bit of backbone.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Better than plugins

"That's an important distinction, and it costs us absolutely nothing, other than having to show a bit of backbone."

Except it's all hollow bravado. The content providers are the types who hear, "Over my dead body," and respond, "If you insist..."

IOW, sometimes you have to pick your fights. And since people still flock to cinemas, we wouldn't win that fight. The average joe wouldn't be able to tell the difference and frankly wouldn't give a rodent's donkey about whether or not it's an open standard or not. Gimme my movie is all they want, which is why Netflix is making a killing, too, IN SPITE of proprietary standards.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Better than plugins

People flock to cinemas for an experience.

Its a night out, yes its expensive and the popcorn a rip off but it is still a night out. Dinner in a restaurant is a rip off if you look at the cost of the ingredients, a night club is an expensive way of listening to a record and a pub a horrendous cost compared to a beer from the supermarket. None of this matters, people WANT the feeling that they are doing something a bit special.

That does NOT mean DRM is essential to protect content. Make the cinema experience better, make the dvd / blueray or whatever a reasonable cost and let it play on my nice big living room tv for the family without me getting frustrated about the length of time to load, the rubbish I have to put up with before the film and stop bothering to ship a second dvd of crap I will never watch, make sure the player/tv can let me switchon and watch NOW without spending hours booting (yes, really, a modern tv is SLOWER than my old valve one!!! and compare that dvd player with the old video tape and it loses everytime). This way I might stop bothering with tracking down ripped off content on my laptop which is always a pain and takes a long time and provides content littered with adverts.

Basically try thinking rather than repeating the mistakes of the past. It is for the reason of forcing people to think that I would have said no to this drm crud becoming an internet standard.

3
0

That word you keep using, I don't think you know what it means.....

"Berners-Lee makes a series of arguments for why EME should be approved: including that having a standard allows for greater inoperability; and that it enables the data provided by content use to be limited, improving online privacy."

"inoperability"???

Shirley you mean "interoperability"

(or maybe he does mean what he says.... and he wants things to be not working)

1
0
Silver badge

Re: That word you keep using, I don't think you know what it means.....

Having a standard allows for greater interoperability. Having DRM allows for greater inoperability.

7
0
FAIL

Pointless!

The DRM will be crap, It will be defeated. And the content will end up out there in the wild anyway.

7
1

Unfortunately, no

Speaking realistically, people "pay" for their media through spending either money or a chunk of time & effort circumventing DRM. It's enough of a hassle that the vast majority of people are busy & economically comfortable enough that they'll gladly fork over money to avoid it — which means it's doing its job, not at all pointless.

1
1

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017